You have a very nice understanding of the arguments in play here and you do an excellent job using qualifications as a component of your argument. Your next step is to use some more ethos, some more communication that indicates that you KNOW that you are right.
Mini Rebuttal Redo Practice:
Not repetitive at the beginning, start with something big. What are the things you are talking about united by, say that they are both reasons u might not to.
2nd—really nice bringing it together, now you need to cite some evidence and warrants for these arguments
PRACTICE ROUND 8/6 (SCLEMMONS)
CX: Do not let your opponent take over your cross examination. Most questions should be of the YES or NO variety. Do not let your opponent ask you questions either. That is the way that they will steal your time. Good poise in the CX though. You did not seem rattled.
2NC Make sure that you tell the judge where you are gong before the start of your speech (called a roadmap) Also, make sure that you are telling the judge when you are moving to a new argument (like moving to the case from the CP)
Jung, make sure at the end of the speech, or somewhere during the speech that you are explaining your arguments holistically to the judge. Think about why the judge should vote your arguments over the Neg arguments.
I like that you were never flustered with getting directions on the fly. Your ability to translate instructions and guidance was great. I knew that you were ready to learn, but doing in the debate round showed tremendous growth.
Just so you know, the 2NR is probably the second hardest speech to do in debate and you DID IT!
With the last speech, you want to focus on the arguments which are the reason for the judge to vote your way. Think about applying for a job. You want to present your best foot forward, and minimize the warts that you have.
Good explanation of the difference between land based and sea based aquaculture. That will be the key for the NEG in the practice rounds.
All in all the aff case is okay, although you have staked out extra topical plan. We still want to work on impacts though, for instance, on the heg advantage try to be more specific about where in the world an increase in US heg would be helpful. Negative case has some good ideas, but needs some more work on structure, as is the uniqueness is going the wrong way and the K criticizes imperialism but says that the impact is increased heg, this doesn't make any sense. The aff is still a little in the knee jerk reaction stage, which is to just argue against everything the neg said, when if you see what's going on strategically, you don't need to do that. For instance pointing out that their uniqueness goes the wrong way for them means you don't need to argue uniqueness going the opposite way. Everyone needs a little more work on time allocation, that means taking questions and also recognizing which arguments are important and which aren't (for instance this free clinics argument). The rebuttals are pretty good, the neg rebuttal is a little strange, but that mostly comes from the fact that the strategy doesn't make a lot of sense. The aff rebuttal is pretty strong, there aren't really new arguments and it's just an explanation of why we're winning our positions, we just need to take the final step to compare the probability, timeframe, magnitude and why our aff is the winning the round.
Impact Comparison Drill--8/12
--really nice job being comparative, you have a strong argument for the pervasiveness of poverty worldwide
--don’t be repetitive, keep on track and make each of your arguments one time through and trust the judge to flow them
--you probably want to set up some sort of system for making these comparisons, deciding who is going to win what and how I evaluate it
--why could poverty be the cause of cyber terrorism?
Topicality Drill--8/13
--good keep the attitude at the beginning
--remember, you are saying that its not USFG exploration, you obviously get this, but it doesn’t always come out clearly
--your goal is to prove that the aff is essentially cheating
Rebuttal Redos--8/14 (Baxter)
--whats the impact to the rights argument to freedom etc? (Like you do with the revolt stuff later on)
--do you need a plan to make voting optional? That’s how it is now
--explain what the scenarios for not voting are that prove why its government control
--don’t give them so much airtime in your speech, refer to their argument really briefly
First speech/evidence drill:
You have a very nice understanding of the arguments in play here and you do an excellent job using qualifications as a component of your argument. Your next step is to use some more ethos, some more communication that indicates that you KNOW that you are right.
Mini Rebuttal Redo Practice:
Not repetitive at the beginning, start with something big. What are the things you are talking about united by, say that they are both reasons u might not to.
2nd—really nice bringing it together, now you need to cite some evidence and warrants for these arguments
PRACTICE ROUND 8/6 (SCLEMMONS)
CX: Do not let your opponent take over your cross examination. Most questions should be of the YES or NO variety. Do not let your opponent ask you questions either. That is the way that they will steal your time. Good poise in the CX though. You did not seem rattled.
2NC Make sure that you tell the judge where you are gong before the start of your speech (called a roadmap) Also, make sure that you are telling the judge when you are moving to a new argument (like moving to the case from the CP)
Jung, make sure at the end of the speech, or somewhere during the speech that you are explaining your arguments holistically to the judge. Think about why the judge should vote your arguments over the Neg arguments.
I like that you were never flustered with getting directions on the fly. Your ability to translate instructions and guidance was great. I knew that you were ready to learn, but doing in the debate round showed tremendous growth.
Just so you know, the 2NR is probably the second hardest speech to do in debate and you DID IT!
With the last speech, you want to focus on the arguments which are the reason for the judge to vote your way. Think about applying for a job. You want to present your best foot forward, and minimize the warts that you have.
Good explanation of the difference between land based and sea based aquaculture. That will be the key for the NEG in the practice rounds.
Practice Round 5--Friday, Steve
Practice Round 7--Monday 8/11 (Steve)
Practice Round 8/13 (Kehl)
All in all the aff case is okay, although you have staked out extra topical plan. We still want to work on impacts though, for instance, on the heg advantage try to be more specific about where in the world an increase in US heg would be helpful. Negative case has some good ideas, but needs some more work on structure, as is the uniqueness is going the wrong way and the K criticizes imperialism but says that the impact is increased heg, this doesn't make any sense. The aff is still a little in the knee jerk reaction stage, which is to just argue against everything the neg said, when if you see what's going on strategically, you don't need to do that. For instance pointing out that their uniqueness goes the wrong way for them means you don't need to argue uniqueness going the opposite way. Everyone needs a little more work on time allocation, that means taking questions and also recognizing which arguments are important and which aren't (for instance this free clinics argument). The rebuttals are pretty good, the neg rebuttal is a little strange, but that mostly comes from the fact that the strategy doesn't make a lot of sense. The aff rebuttal is pretty strong, there aren't really new arguments and it's just an explanation of why we're winning our positions, we just need to take the final step to compare the probability, timeframe, magnitude and why our aff is the winning the round.Impact Comparison Drill--8/12
--really nice job being comparative, you have a strong argument for the pervasiveness of poverty worldwide
--don’t be repetitive, keep on track and make each of your arguments one time through and trust the judge to flow them
--you probably want to set up some sort of system for making these comparisons, deciding who is going to win what and how I evaluate it
--why could poverty be the cause of cyber terrorism?
Topicality Drill--8/13
--good keep the attitude at the beginning
--remember, you are saying that its not USFG exploration, you obviously get this, but it doesn’t always come out clearly
--your goal is to prove that the aff is essentially cheating
Rebuttal Redos--8/14 (Baxter)
--whats the impact to the rights argument to freedom etc? (Like you do with the revolt stuff later on)
--do you need a plan to make voting optional? That’s how it is now
--explain what the scenarios for not voting are that prove why its government control
--don’t give them so much airtime in your speech, refer to their argument really briefly